Deleted post

If you follow me closely, you will notice that a particular post has been deleted. It was brought to my attention that I had inadvertently put bad and hurtful misinformation in the post, so I deleted it and I will be taking time to educate myself about that issue.

On the Chosen Family and Mark 3:20-35

For the last couple of months, I have been a part of a course called "Queering the Bible".  As a final project (so to speak), I wrote a sermon based on Mark 3:20-35.  I was able to read it to the group, and I wanted to share it here.

----------------------------

It is a truism that humans are, by nature, social animals.  We tend to seek out other people so that we can maintain a connection outside of ourselves, to find someone to help us when we are in trouble, or to find someone that we can help.  For much of history, the family has been the most basic social group that has existed.  Whether it be parents and their children or whole generations living together, the family has been an important part of various societies.

Depending on where you live, a family name may very well completely influence the life you lead.  Think about America today.  We have families whose members are famous for no other reason than their family name.  The Kennedy’s, the Bush’s, the Kardashians’, and other families have a national importance that has outlasted the people who made the name famous in the first place.  If you look on a local level, I am sure you can think of other families in your area whose name carries a weight that maybe it shouldn’t because the family did something great in the past.

In Biblical times, the family name was more important than it is now.  Think of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke tracing Jesus’ lineage back to Abraham (Matthew) or Adam (Luke).  Think of the division of Israel into tribes based on which son of Israel they were descended from.  Your lineage could determine your position in life, what types of jobs you could have, where you lived, and many other facets of your life.

In Mark 3:20-35, we see the family of Jesus wanting to take him into their custody because they believed that he was “out of his mind” (Mark 3:21) and the religious leaders said that, “He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons, he is driving out demons.” (Mark 3:22).  So, when his family came to take possession of him and he was told that they were waiting outside, Jesus’ response was to ask the rhetorical question: “Who are my mother and my brothers?” He then responded to the question with “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mark 3:33-35)

In this passage, Jesus is laying out the idea of what we now call “the chosen family”.  It is a family, not of blood or a legality such as adoption (hereafter termed “biological family” for convenience’s sake), but of a bond that exists due to common beliefs or characteristics.  If you think about it, most people form chosen families.  Some arise from necessity because people have been rejected by their biological families.  Others arise because people have beliefs that cause them to drift from their biological family, so they seek out a family that shares these beliefs.  Or, a chosen family may form because people are far away from home and need a support system around them.

For those of us in the queer community, the chosen family is all too often formed because of the first reason given above: rejection by the biological family.  All too often, our families reject us because they see us as “making a choice” that they disagree with.  Or maybe they don’t understand or respect our gender identity, name, or some other aspect of our lives that is not “normal”.  So we seek out others like us, people who can understand the particular struggles we face, the issues that society presents us with, or can commiserate with us when we face the prejudices that all too often face us when we exist in the world as who we truly are rather than as the world wishes us to be.

As we see in this passage, Jesus is explicitly embracing the idea that there exists the idea of a familial bond that goes beyond the bond of blood.  He embraces the idea that working together to fulfill the will of God can be a bond that forms a family.  These bonds of love and belief need to be understood through the lens of the special love Jesus had for those who were marginalized or outcast.  Throughout the Gospels, we see Jesus taking special care for people who the society of the time had rejected: lepers, Samaritans, prostitutes, and tax collectors to name a few.  Jesus was explicit in claiming these people as a part of the Kindom of God: a kindom not of power, but of Love.

God’s Love is a notion that is central to the Bible.  In the Old Testament, we see that it is seen as limited to the Israelites as God’s Chosen People.  But in the New Testament, Jesus talks of how God’s love is meant to encompass all people, regardless of whether or not they are Israelites.  He embraces and protects those who were cast out of society.  This call for a love that embrace all people regardless of what society says was, quite probably, one of Jesus’ most radical teachings.

In many ways, this sort of love asks us to go against our nature as human beings.  If you think about it, because we are social animals, we form groups and tend to see the world as “us vs. them”.  We see those outside our group as a threat to us, which may or may not be true.  The more deeply we hold to the beliefs that bind our group together, the more threatened we will feel by other groups.  But if we take Jesus’ call for an all-embracing love into account, we will embrace all people, even those we disagree with or feel threatened by.  This doesn’t mean that we have to like them or what they do, but we are called to see them as fellow children of God and to love and respect them as such.

Years ago, I read a book called Catholic & Christian by Peter Kreeft.  In it, he talks about how there are three Greek words for love in the Bible: eros, philea, and agape.  (I have since discovered there is a fourth: storge.)  I want to focus on agape.  Peter Kreeft defined agape as a perfect, self-giving love.  Agape does not depend on sentiment or how we feel at the time.  It is a love that seeks to help others, that sees that others have worth simply because they are, that does not depend on how we are feeling at the moment.  It is not a warm blanket that we can wrap ourselves in.  It is not that fuzzy feeling you get when you see someone attractive.  It is love in action.  It is love that gives because it can, not because a reward is being sought.  It can be small and seemingly insignificant, or it can be large and world changing.

Agape is often the cement that holds a chosen family together.  We love and support each other, not because we have to, but because we choose to love and support each other.  We have all been through similar experiences of having to reconcile who we are with who the world tells us we should be.  We have all experienced the rejection (or fear of rejection) that comes along with the journey of self-discovery that we embark on so that we can live our lives as our authentic selves.  While the particulars of our situations are different, the broad strokes are similar enough for all of us to be bound together in bonds of love and support.

The bonds that form a chosen family go beyond just similar beliefs and experiences.  They can also include a shared interest.  In the show Pose and the documentary Paris is Burning, we see how important chosen family could be to people who were not only not only gay/lesbian and/or transgender, but also Black or Latinx.  Houses had a parent who would serve as protectors of and mentors for young men and women who had no other family.  These families were born of necessity due to society rejecting people who transgressed societal norms.  Within both these Houses and the underground ball culture, people were free to be themselves in a place of safety and support.

While the chosen family is of particular importance to the queer community, it has spread to the wider world.  One example is “Friends-giving”, when people celebrate Thanksgiving, not with their biological family, but with friends who they feel particularly close to.  In other words, this is another form of a chosen family.  If you look at many teen dramas, they also have some form of chosen family taken place.  For example, in Dawson’s Creek, not only is there the wider chosen family of the entire group of friends, but Jen, Grams, and Jack form their own chosen family after Jack is rejected by his father after coming out.  Even though Jack and his father eventually reconcile, the bonds he forms with Jen and Grams are the strongest and most durable in his life, to the point where he calls Jen his “soulmate” in the series finale.

The most important part about a chosen family is that it is “chosen” it rather than it being assigned to us.  It is not a family we have out of obligation, but one we pick for ourselves and is based on bonds of love and affection.  With our biological families, we often feel obligated to support each other because that is what we are “supposed to do” rather than because we want to.  With a chosen family, on the other hand, we have people around us who we have made the explicit choice to make a part of our lives.  These sorts of chosen bonds can be some of the strongest bonds that exist because they are based on a conscious decision rather than being forced on us.

When I was growing up, I was part of a cult called the Mother of God Community.  Being a part of this Community was an integral part of who I was, and my entire identity was centered around it.  Any other aspect of my life, including being a part of the Catholic Church, was subordinated to my identity as a member of the Community.  When the Community came crashing down in the summer between my junior and senior years of high school, it caused me to have an identity crisis because I had never developed a sense of self that did not depend on the Community.  Subsequently, I latched onto a couple of other groups to substitute for the Community as a part of my identity.  Eventually, I realized that these groups were no better for me than the Community had been.

After college, when I realized that I was queer (I identified as gay at the time), I was thrown into another identity crisis.  The religious beliefs I had grown up with conflicted with this part of me that I had tried to deny or get rid of, but eventually had to accept lest I risk causing myself more damage than I had already done.  In the end, I ended up leaving the Catholic Church because I needed to find out who I was apart from any group.  A few years later, after I had discovered an identity that did not depend on someone else (I was 36 at this point), I decided to find a church that was affirming.  And so, I found my current church, Christ the Servant Lutheran Church in Gaithersburg, MD.

In this church, I found a chosen family that was truly healthy and good for all.  We are bound together by the bonds of love for each other and the community around us, “regardless of sex, race, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical and mental ability, age, or anything else that too often divides us.” (http://www.ctslutheranelca.org/about/)  Because the church accepted me and allowed me to be who I am without judgment, I was, for the first time, able to connect with the local queer community and meet more people to be a part of my chosen family.

I say this not to boost myself or my church, but to illustrate the complete and utter necessity of familial bonds, even if they are not bonds of blood or legality.  Over the last several years, there have been numerous young members of the queer community who have been rejected by their family and then committed suicide because they felt alone and isolated.  When someone does not have other strong bonds and their biological family rejects them, they are much more likely to commit suicide.  With the advent of social media and the greater interconnectedness that accompanies it, the percentage of queer teens who commit suicide has trended downward because there has been more acceptance, but the rate of queer youth committing suicide (or contemplating it) is still well above that of non-queer youth. (https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20200210/fewer-lgbt-teens-plagued-by-suicidal-thoughts-but-rates-still-high#1)

In the Bible, Jesus calls us to love each other and to care for each other, regardless of whether or not we are related by blood (see the Parable of the Good Samaritan).  Having a chosen family is just one way we can do that.  Through this family, we can support each other, cheer each other on, uplift those who need to be uplifted, and have a connection outside ourselves that is based on love, not obligation.

Message for Queer Youth of Faith

“Come unto me, all you who labor and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon your shoulders and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart.  Here you will find rest for your souls, for my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”  - Matthew 11:28-30, Priests for Equality, The Inclusive Bible, Sheed & Ward Kindle Edition

When I heard about the Queer Youth of Faith Day, the verses above popped into my head.  Or, to be more precise, an aria from Handel’s Messiah popped into my head and then the verses that the aria came from.

As queer people, like so many other marginalized groups, we find that we carry burdens that can make our lives harder.  Whether it is having to justify our existence, defend our right to live our lives, or many, many other areas, we are asked to shoulder heavy burdens that other people are not asked to.  This is particularly true if you are a member of a non-affirming religious group.  Often, people in non-affirming religious groups must hide who they are lest they incur the wrath of people around them.

I grew up in the Catholic church.  Like many more conservative religions, the Catholic church claims to accept people, but only if they deny who they really are.  If you are queer, you are expected to either deny who you are and enter into a heterosexual marriage or remain single with no hope of entering into a loving marriage or relationship.  These religions basically turn queer people into second class citizens and claim to “love” them.  Rather than show queer people the Love that God has for all people, they make queer people feel like they don’t belong in God’s loving embrace.

This is in stark contrast to the verses above.  As a few people in an online group I am a part of noted, these verses explicitly invite people who have been given heavy burdens to come into Jesus’ presence and to share our burden with Him.  And not just Him, but all people who are a part of the Body of Christ, i.e. the Church.  For many queer people, this is the first time we have been invited to be a part of religious group and a chance to lay down the burdens that have been foisted upon us.  We are not just tolerated, but actively invited to become a part of the Church so that we can share our burden with others and help share burdens from other people.

For anyone who is unfamiliar with a yoke, it is a tool that allows farmers to hook two animals to each other so that they can share the burden of pulling a plow so that a field can be planted.  By sharing the burden, neither animal has to work as hard as if they were pulling alone.  In a similar way, when we are there for each other, we can share the emotional and mental burdens that are a part of life.  When we are all on our own, it can be really easy to be overwhelmed by everything that is going on around us.  But, by sharing our burdens with other people, we make it harder to be overwhelmed.  And when we allow others to share their burdens with us, we help them lighten the load that they are carrying.

If we humans can help each other this way, just imagine how much God can help if we allow Them to.  I’m not saying that it will all of a sudden make everything easy peasy, but if we allow God to love us the way They want to, then it can make things easier.  And by opening ourselves to God’s Love, we also open ourselves to the love that other people can offer us.

I remember my first time entering an affirming church.  Hearing people tell me that I was a child of God and loved just as I am, having people ask me for my pronouns, and seeing signs by the bathrooms urging people to use the bathroom that best aligns with their gender identity rally gave me a sense of the love that was waiting for me.  Knowing that people were going to accept me and not tell me that I was destined for hell or looking at me like I was some sort of perverted being has helped me in more ways than I can really tell. 

Unfortunately, for a lot of people, it is really easy to feel trapped in your church, which can lead to feeling isolated, lonely, and unloved.  This is particularly true when you are a minor and your parents are insisting that you go to a church which is unwelcoming.  In this sort of situation, please find a group (like this website) that is affirming and has people who can help you,  Or if you can’t do that, try and find another adult you can trust and talk to about what is bothering you.  Finding someone to help shoulder the burden makes things a little easier.

I know one thing that helps me is to remember (as Lady Gaga says in “Born this Way”) “I’m beautiful in my own way, ‘cause God makes no mistakes.”  Another is the quote I mentioned from my church: “Know that you are a child of God and God love you just the way you are.”  We are not broken.  We are not unlovable.  We are not things to be discarded at will.  We are not evil or destined to burn in hellfire.

We are beautiful.  We are lovable and loved.  We are people and worthy of respect.  We are welcomed into God’s loving embrace at all times.  We are invited to be a part of the Church and to share our burdens and troubles with the members of the Church.

Know that YOU are a child of God and that YOU are loved EXACTLY as YOU are.

The ELCA and "Visions and Expectations"

Last week, I heard about a document called "Visions and Expectations" which was a document which was first put out in 1990 and then revised in 2010 (see link above) from the ELCA regarding people who could be ordained to the ministry.  See this link for more history.

I read the document for the first time today and was struck mainly by the footnote that said "This 'Vision and Expectations' document uses the terms 'marriage,' 'marry,' and 'married' to refer to marriage between a man and a woman." [emphasis mine]  one other thing that struck me was the way they referred to "same gender relationships", which would seem to exclude non-binary or agender people.  The final thing was the emphasis on monogamous relationships, which excludes those in faithful polyamorous relationships.

I do get that the document was written in 2010 so I can give some passes due to that.  It was before Obergefell v. Ohio and most states did not allow marriages that were not between a man and a woman to be legal.  I also get that polyamory is a complicated topic for many people.

All that being said, my hope is that the church will come out full throated for equality for all.  The recent decision of the UMC has shown that in America, there are a great many people who fully support full equality for all queer people.  In order for the church to be complete, it must allow all people to fully be a part of the life of the church.  This include queer people, this includes people in polyamorous unions, this includes using language that is open to all and doesn't exclude anyone, and this includes recognizing that the church has actively played a part in the stigmatization and oppression of different groups throughout its history.

I do recognize that another part of the reason for the timidity of the document is that there are more conservative elements within the ELCA that there are individual churches which as not welcoming to all people.  This view is not consistent with the radical love that Christ sought to bring into the world.  Jesus sought out the poor, the disenfranchised, the outcast, and brought them into the fold.  He did not try and exclude anyone from the love of God, rather he flung the doors wide open to allow all people in.  This is the sort of love that is expected of all Christians and that I expect the church to have.  This

                              is agape, a perfect, transcendent love, a love that raised the
                              mountains, created the world, and breathed life into humans.
                              A love that is transformative and validating.  A love that
                              abides no borders because it knows no borders.

This is the love we, as a church, are called to have.  And this love must extend to those who will be ministers and leaders of the church.  When you exclude people from the church, you limit who the church can reach and what will be considered because people have a much harder time talking intelligently about that which they do not know.

Added 3/11/2019-

So I just discovered that there is a new version of the document ("Trustworthy Servants of God") that I was able to read.  While it removes much of the problematic language above, it is in all other aspects identical to the 2010 document.  The document is incredibly bland and generic, which renders it value pretty much a moot point.  I am hoping that something stronger, more forward looking, and more inclusive will come out sooner rather than later.

Written testimony in Support of MD SB196

There was a bill put before the Maryland State Senate this year (which passed the Senate, YEA!!!) allowing non-binary people, such as myself, the opportunity to put a "X" as our gender marker rather than a "M" or "F".  Recently, there was an article in the Baltimore Sun about how people do not support this idea.  I wanted to post my testimony about this to give people the perspective of a non-binary person and so they can see that this is not a huge ask, but rather something which won't affect them but will aid us.

---------------

My name is Matthew Vandover and I am submitting this written testimony in support of Senate Bill 196 which would allow people to choose an unspecified sex for their drivers’ license rather than only male or female.

I am a nonbinary individual, which means that I do not identify as either male or female.  Yet every day I am forced to identify as male or female whenever I submit an online application or form or if I fill out a paper application.  People like me are not being allowed to be ourselves, rather we are being forced into the boxes within the gender binary.  While this bill is not perfect, it is a big step forward to recognizing those of us who are non-binary.

There have been only a few opportunities in my life where I was given the option to choose an option other than male and female, and every time it was wonderful because it allowed me to be who I truly am rather than trying to force me into a box that I do not truly fit in.  My sense of identity, something that cisgender people take for granted, is something that I constantly need to affirm and present to people, so having the government officially recognize this would validate me and anyone else like me.

Every day, I am forced to see the world in gendered terms:  men’s and women’s rooms, men’s and women’s clothing, men’s and women’s sports, etc., etc., etc.  There is rarely, if ever, a choice for someone who is looking for something that is gender-neutral.  While this may not seem like a huge deal, having to constantly fight or remind myself that the gender binary is not the only way to look at the world is a huge drain on me emotionally and psychologically.

I am not a scientist, doctor, or researcher, so I cannot speak about that, all I can do is speak for myself.  By allowing me to identify myself officially as the person I am, the government would go a long way to not only validating my identity, experience, and existence, but it would make life easier and less stressful for future individuals who are non-binary.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask that you vote in favor of SB196.

Matthew Vandover

Rethinking my labels and sexuality

Over the last few months, I have been having some very nice talks with a new friend and have been thinking a lot about social justice, intersectionality, and other issues.  The other day, I had some thoughts that i needed to talk with them about and yesterday, we spent several hours talking about a whole host of things.

The reason I asked to talk with them (yes, that is their pronoun) is because I have been rethinking the label I give to my sexuality.  For years, I have referred to myself as gay because I am into guys.  But recently, I realized that I am more attracted to male biology (i.e. the penis) than guys in general.  That means that I am into cis guys, trans guys, and even (potentially) trans women who have not had bottom surgery.  The other issue I was thinking about is that since I am non-binary, it is weird to refer to myself as gay, which indicates a guy who is into other guys.  When I was thinking about all of this, it occurred to me that I am closer to pansexual, but that is not quite right either because I am not into women.  Hence, the need to talk with my friend.  After our talk, I think that it is a better fit for me to describe myself as a queer, non-binary individual.

I am fairly sure that I've said this in the past, but to me, labels are of the utmost importance.  I know there are people who see them as limiting, but I see them as me defining myself both to myself and for the world in general.  Labels also allow people to know who you are.  That is not to say that labels are all sunshine and kittens.  After all, some people use labels to bully and harm others.  Or they may use them to discriminate.

That being said, I do think the power of labels given to oneself outweighs any other issues.  There are always going to be people who disrespect any group, and I know that type of disrespect can be incredibly harmful to people.  But if you can find a community of like-minded/supportive people, it can make all the difference, even if there are people who are bullying you.  I do get that there are people who do not like labels, and that is their prerogative, but I personally see that as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Just my thoughts.  What do you think?

On Noah Galvin's Interview

I've read the interview that Noah Galvin (from The Real O'Neals) had with Vulture magazine and I have to say that while I think he made some good points, I have to take serious issue with his comments regarding Colton Haynes coming out.

As I've said in the past on this blog, coming out is a deeply, deeply personal process that needs to be done based on the person coming out, not on the way other people would do it.  There is no right or wrong way to do it.  Some people come out of the closet to the sounds of heavenly hosts and blasting trumpets, other people come out in a much more subtle manner, and others choose not to come out at all.  Every choice is correct and none should be denigrated as "fucking pussy bullshit", which is apparently a reference to the fact that Colton never used the words "I'm gay."  While I understand that Noah may have come out differently (I honestly don't know), Colton said that he has suffered from depression and other issues and that he needed the time to come out in his own way.

Based on the interview, Noah seems to think that there is only one "right" way to come out, which is the real "fucking pussy bullshit".  I will admit that I wish every LGBTQIA person would come out of the closet, if only for their own mental health, there are people who can't for whatever reason.  As Noah rightly notes (based on what I have read in various places), there is still a deep sense of homophobia in Hollywood when it comes to out actors/actresses being hired for non-out roles.  And there are a lot of straight/cisgender actors/actresses who are playing LGBTQIA roles.  Am I saying that every LGBTQIA role *MUST* go to a LGBTQIA person?  Not necessarily, but I do think it would be a good idea.

All that being said, I was very disappointed in the very, very judgmental way Noah looked at someone else's coming out.  While I understand that he has his own opinion (and is entitled to it), what he does not have the right to do is denigrate someone else's journey because it doesn't fit the idea that he seems to have for how the process works.  Shame on you Noah.  Now go grow up.

On dropping the "T" from "LGBT"

For the past several months, there have been people suggesting that the "T" be dropped from "LGBT" because people who are transgender do not have the same concerns as people who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual.  Today on The Federalist website, Walt Heyer, described as "an accomplished author and public speaker with a passion for mentoring individuals whose lives have been torn apart by unnecessary gender-change surgery" posted an article entitled "Drop the T from LGBT".  His basic argument is that people who are transgender are psychologically sick and that, for the good of the broader LGB movement, the concerns of "transgenders" (his word) need to be dropped.

A little background about Mr. Heyer.  At one point ( I can't find an exact date), he had sexual reassignment surgery and became a woman and then, almost 10 years later, had surgery to change back to a man.  From what I have been able to discover about him, he doesn't seem to have any special training and relies on his own experiences to claim that being transgender is a psychological disorder and that people who are transgender need therapy, not surgery.

I will also say that he is not the only person who is looking to "drop the T".  I have seen articles from people within the LGBTQIA community saying similar things.  As you may have guessed, I find this proposition to be a very disturbing one.  While it is true that transgender issues are not the exactly the same as issues faced by lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, the goal of the LGBTQIA community is not only to advocate for same-sex marriage, adoption, etc.  The goal is full equality for all people, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identification, race, skin color, etc.  As such, we need to embrace all people and welcome them to work with us as we work towards a more egalitarian society.

The more parochial and narrow minded view doesn't see this.  For people within the LGBTQIA community who want to "drop the T", they are merely out for their self-interest and not for the good of all people.  And anyone in the community who takes the thoughts of a transphobic person like Walt Heyer and makes them their own is delusional.  To think that he has the good of the LGBTQIA community in mind is mind blowingly stupid.  He is just trying to create divisions within the larger community to splinter us.  We need to stand together to help create a society where *EVERYONE* is treated equally and is equal.  Period.

On people coming out and our reactions

If you look on almost any entertainment site today, you will see a link about Charlie Carver (Teen Wolf and Desperate Housewives) coming out as gay (example).  As with any other celebrity coming out recently; whether it be gay, trans, lesbian, bi, or anything else; there are a few inevitable comments.  The two most prominent are "Of course we already knew this!" or "So what?"

The second one, I'll dealt with in the past (see here) but suffice to say that it is important for LGBTQIA individuals (children and teens in particular) to have role models who mirror them and their struggles.  Since suicide are prominent due to the rejection of LGBTQIA individuals by their families or churches, the more role models we have, the better.

The first one is the one that absolutely infuriates me.  First off, saying that minimizes the person and what they have accomplished by coming out.  Secondly, you *NEVER* know that someone is LGBTQIA until *they tell you themselves*.  You may suspect, but you do not know for sure.  To assume that a person is LGBTQIA because of the way they act, dress, or whatever is stereotyping an entire group and is extremely small minded.  When someone comes out, they deserve our support and should be applauded for what they have done.  Yes, society has made it easier for someone to come out of the closet, but there are still a lot of people out there who would willingly discriminate against people who are not heterosexual, cisgender, Caucasian individuals (men in particular).

Since coming out is a deeply personal process, we need to respect each and every individual whether or not they choose to come out.  I know that a lot of people recently have criticized Colton Haynes recently for his supposed coy "coming out" and said that he should just come out in order to be a role model. Assuming that he was in fact coming out (which I don't see from what he said), it is entirely his choice how or why to do so.  Whether it is because they just want to maintain a certain level of privacy, may not be ready to accept it yet, or whatever other reason, we should *NEVER, EVER* force anyone out of the closet regardless of the circumstances.  If we truly want to respect people's individuality, we must give them the space and time they need or want to deal with their own lives.

So when you see a story like this, rather than be like "Of course!", congratulate the person for their courage and support them.  To do less is a disservice to us all and a sign of a small mind.

On gender identity

Gender is probably one of the more misunderstood concepts in the English language.  Typically, people see gender as binary, in other words a person is either male or female.  If someone is transgender, then most people assume that they are either male or female which still fits into the binary gender understanding.  However, the problem is that gender is very much a social construct, that is it is not something that is based in biology, but rather something that society creates in order to say that this is for men ("male") and that is for women ("female").  There are some people, myself included, who do not fit neatly into this understanding of gender.

For years, I have known that I am not truly a man in the way society understands it.  In many, many ways, I am very much a female.  I won't bother going into them, but they are numerous.  I have also been aware that I am not transgender, so I always assumed that I was simply a more "feminine" man.  Then, several weeks ago, I ran across the term "genderqueer" and realized that it described me pretty much perfectly.  Before I explain what this means, I want to examine something about gender.

To understand genderqueer, you have to grasp the idea that rather than being binary, gender is more of a spectrum.  Some people are more feminine, others are more masculine, and still others fall somewhere in between.  For those who fall in between the poles of "masculine" and "feminine", the generic terms "genderfluid" or "genderqueer" are often used.  For some people who are genderfluid, they have "male days" or "female days", in other words, they slide back and forth between being more male or more female.  For me, being genderqueer means that I am neither male nor female, but rather a mix of the two.

Someone asked me why I don't use the term "androgynous".  My reason for not describing myself as androgynous is that, to me, androgyny implies that you are neither male nor female, not that you are both.  It may be a technical difference, but it is also an important one.  So, when I say I am genderqueer what I am saying is that I am balanced between the two,  I don't have "male days" or "female days", rather I am just in between the two.  I like painting my nails and often do so because it is me expressing who I am.  I also like wearing men's clothing, although to be honest I have never worn female clothing, but that may come later.  I do have a distinctly feminine side and have a very firm picture of what she is like.

This leads me to what is probably the hardest part of the process for me- my personal pronouns.  For 37 years now, I have been addressed by male pronouns because everyone assumed I am male because I have a penis.  For now, I can accept that because I have not found any gender-neutral pronouns that I am completely comfortable with (although I think I am getting closer).  Since I am neither male nor female, I would prefer something gender-neutral, so that is what I am looking for.  I have found some places online that talk about gender-neutral pronouns and am looking to see what they are like.  If you want to address me with male pronouns, feel free to do so, but I also would be find with "they" or "their" (although the plural aspect bugs me a bit).

What does this mean for you?  In reality, all it means is that you now know something about me that very few people know.  I am still the same person I have always been, I just now know something about myself I wasn't previously aware of and so are you.  I am still attracted exclusively to men, still hope to get married, etc.  In other words, I am still me.

I will update this when I come across the right pronoun for me.

On "religious liberty" and bigotry

Up to now, for the most part, I have tried to be understanding of people who are against marriage equality and have not ascribed any bad motives to them, but after reading about this incident and this from Mike Huckabee, I find that I can no longer do this.  At this point, people who are against marriage equality have openly crossed the line and are just being flat out bigots.

I do want to draw a distinction between churches not performing same-sex marriages (which falls under religious freedom) and opposing marriage equality in the public sphere which has nothing to do with religious freedom.  If you look at the arguments used by people who oppose marriage equality, you will see eerie similarities to arguments used against integration and civil rights of African Americans in the 50s and 60s.  For example:

[1] In Florida, you have counties which have decided that they are no longer going to do any civil marriages to avoid marrying same-sex couples.
[2] In Denver, you have someone who wanted to decorate a cake with anti-LGBT slurs and insisted that their religious freedom was violated when they were refused
[3] In a throwback to the theory of nullification,  Mike Huckabee is insisting that states can refuse to enforce court rulings if they disagree with them.

Basically, you have people using religion as a cover for their bigotry and hate.  They can claim that they are not bigots, but that doesn't mean a thing.  I can claim anything I want, but if the evidence says otherwise, then I am lying.

I am not saying that there are truly no religious objections, but actions like the ones mentioned above have absolutely nothing to do with religion.  Slate has a great article about how similar Huckabee's position on gay marriage is to Orval Faubus' on segregation.  And there is a lot more out there showing the comparisons.

I won't say anything else right now because I am just too disgusted to say anything.  The right wingers of this country have really gone off the rails espousing theories that have been discredited for a long time now.  Personally, I cannot wait to sweep this sort of thinking into the dustbin of history where it belongs.

On preferences....

I ran across this article (with a video) on Facebook and it touched on some things that really get me annoyed at people.  At the same time, I think that it also gives you some things to think about and consider about yourself, which is never easy.  Watch it when you get the chance.

In the video, Mr. Lassiter talks about how he met someone who he felt an immediate connection to, but the other guy told him that he doesn't date black guys.  He was also introduced to someone else who basically fetishized black guys and also encountered black people who said that he should not date someone who is not black.  What I find a little astonishing is how astonishing he found it.  Maybe I hear from the wrong people, but I have heard this sort of thing in all sorts of different type of people, not just the gay community (and I am not the most connected person in the world).

Everyone has preferences about who they do (or do not) find attractive based on what they think they want in a significant other.  I have never understood why some people seem to have a lot of trouble grasping this concept.  Very few people (if any) can honestly say that they are attracted to every single person around.  Now, where I think Mr. Lassiter and others have a point is when they point out that these preferences can be formed by subtle, internalized factors (in this case racism).  So in that very broad sense, I would agree that there is a certain element of racism, ageism, etc. involved in any preference like that.

That being said, I think that saying that preferences are racism is wrong because (to most people), racism carries with it the baggage of hate and preferences are not necessarily born out of hate.  I know that I, for example, would not date most non-whites for a variety of reasons.  Some of them are appearance based, others have to do with experiences I have had with people from different races.  I will not deny that my attraction to a certain type of guy is heavily influenced by societal notions of what is beautiful and what is not.  However I do have many friends who are not white and I am not prejudiced in a hateful sense.  I do think this distinction is necessary in order to have an honest discussion about the subject.

What we do need to confront, as a society, is our notion related to certain types of physical beauty- a trait which is very pronounced in the gay community.  I cannot tell you how many times I have been called a whale, seen personals where people say "no fats", or something similar to that.  I do understand that there is a preference there, so I try very hard not to take it personally.  My point is that these preferences are rarely personal and are generally based (as Mr. Lassiter notes) on stereotypes.

Mr. Lassiter also says that the gay community is basically hypocritical for calling for non-discrimination while discriminating itself.  This is a notion that I reject.  This is an idea based in the notion that only someone who does not commit a particular sin can call for an end to it.  It is basically based on the idea of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."  The problem with this notion being taken this far is that no one would be able to protest anything.  Everyone has issues that they are dealing with and while there may be a certain amount of hypocrisy involved, that does not mean that people should not be called out on their bull.

Everyone is the product of their experiences, and these experiences shape how we view the world and other people.  For example, most of the black guys (and girls) I first met were in middle school (I went to a small, mostly white private elementary school) and they bullied me big time.  That has made me very reluctant to date someone who is black because of the way I was treated.  Is that fair?  No, but those experiences shaped how I viewed black people for a long time.  I have worked (and am working) very hard to overcome those views and it has not been easy.  Couple experiences with the societal notions of physical beauty and I think that preferences are understandable.

I do want to note that I am not saying that NO preferences are racist, ageist, etc., but the presence of preferences does not automatically indicate this sort of thing.  There are people out there who do believe that miscegenation is wrong.  There is someone I know who saw two characters (of different races) on a tv show dating and said that people of different races should never date.  Also, see Mr. Lassiter's black friends he references in the videos.

I guess what I am trying to say is that while we do need to confront the more subtle causes of racism, ageism, sexism, etc., to automatically label someone as a racist (with its attendant baggage) because they have preferences is a horribly bad idea.  Just some food for thought.

On using words to denigrate...

If you've read my poem "Words" or one of my several posts on the subject, you know that I care a great deal about what words that people use and how those words are used.  I really want to focus right now on how often we, as a culture, use words relating to females as put downs, particularly where men are concerned.

Think about it.  How often have you heard one of these phrases: "sounds like a girl.", "screamed like a girl.", "ran like a girl.", "looks like a girl.", or something similar?  I'm sure you hear them so often that they don't even really make an impact on you anymore.  I was surprised the other day when I realized how often even I use phrases like these.  While I am not trying to be insulting to women, I am.  After all, each of these phrases indicates someone doing something in a way that is "unmanly" or wrong, therefore meaning that there is something about being a female that makes you worth less than a male.

The major problem is that our society is severely patriarchal and values things that men do over things that women do.  Doubt me?  Ask yourself why we, as a society, value people who work outside of the home in a "real job" more than we do stay-at-home parents.  If a dad is a stay-at-home dad, people look at him as being weak or deficient somehow.  Even the phrase, "Who wears the pants in the house?" assumes that the real power in a household is the person who wears the pants.  Since pants are "men's" clothing, the implication is obvious.  If you are a sensitive male, you will hear that you need to "toughen up", "stop being a wuss", or something similar to that.  If there is a male singer who has a higher voice, they are put down because they "sound like a girl."  If a male looks at all effeminate, they are the target of harassment because they "look like a girl."  I could keep going in this vein, but I'll stop there.

You can look all around to find issues where we hold things that are "masculine" to be valued more highly than things that are "feminine".  Whether it is someone's job, appearance, voice, or anything else, our society has chosen to place a higher premium on things that are related to men than things that are related to women.  Unless, of course, you are talking about objectification in which case, the objectification of women is much more highly prized because that is what our heteronormative, patriarchal society wants.

What can you do?  Well, first off, pay attention to what you say.  If you catch yourself comparing someone to a particular group as a put down, stop yourself.  The act of saying that denigrates a whole group of people and merely perpetuates a cycle where certain people are valued more highly than others.  Second, if you catch someone else doing it; and it is safe to do so; gently ask them not to do it.  If they make fun of you for standing up for other people, know that they are the lesser person because they need to put others down to build themselves up.  The only way this will change is if we can demonstrate to people that what they are doing is truly hurtful and wrong.  There will, of course, be resistance.  After all, there are many people who do things because "everyone else does it", because "that's the way its always been done", or some equally asinine reason.  Changing attitudes and ways of thinking requires a lot of effort and time.  But ultimately, it will always be worth it.

On Billy Gilman's coming out video

In case you missed it yesterday, Billy Gilman came out yesterday in a YouTube video.  If you haven't seen it yet, I encourage you to go view it and hear what he has to say.  In its own way, the video is absolutely heartbreaking because of some of what he has to say about why he took a while to come out.  And given some of the comments I have seen on websites which have run this news, I cannot say I am surprised at his fear.

In his video, he says that part of the reason he didn't come out was because he felt that country music was a hard genre to be an openly gay artist in and because country music would be ashamed of him.  Apparently there were some rumours about his sexuality and when he had some new music to release, no major labels would come to him, despite the fact that he had 2 albums certified gold by the time he was 13 and sold over 5 million albums.  While this may not have all been because of the rumours, it is hard not to think that they played a major part in what happened.  He also said that he had a showcase and no major albums showed up.  As I said just above, this may be due to other reasons, but given how people are about rumours in general, it is hard to imagine that they had nothing to do with the labels not showing up.

While society has come a long way in the past few years where it comes to accepting people who are LGBT, there is still a lot of work to be done.  Why should anyone have to hide who they are from the world because they are afraid of how people will react?  People who say that people should not have to come out are right, only thing is most of them are right for the wrong reasons.  A lot of them say that people shouldn't be sharing who they are sleeping with or something like that.  As I said in an earlier post, that is not what coming out is about.  Coming out is about telling the world who you are and being honest.  I look forward to the day when people don't need to come out, but will be accepted as who they are.  Sadly, we are not there yet, so it is important to hear the stories of people like Billy Gilman or anyone else who comes out in order to become more aware of the issues surrounding people who come out.

How do I know we're not there yet?  Just look at some of the comments on pages with news about Billy's coming out.  One commenter called him a "snaggle toothed mongoloid" and another set up a dueling set of dialogues about Billy Gilman's team and Ty Herndon's team both rushing to come out first.  It may not sound bad, but when you read it, you will see it is written in a highly derogatory tone.  And those were the nicest of the bad comments.  It's just sad and pathetic that people still have this sort of reaction to someone coming out and telling the world who they actually are.

It takes a lot of courage for anyone to come out, but it takes a lot more to come out as a celebrity- particularly one in country music which tends to have a particularly reactionary fan base.  I do want to emphasize that I am not saying all country music fans are homophobic twats, but as a whole, the fanbase and genre are not the most progressive.  Doubt it, read this article with some of country singer Kenny Chesney's thoughts on how country music views women.  And yes, I am well aware to other musical genres objectify women as well, but that is a topic for another post.

Mr. Gilman, congratulations on coming out and I hope that you and your partner have a long and happy life together.  I have been a fan since your first album and will continue to remain one.

Sermon from Ash Wednesday 2006

On Ash Wednesday 2006, when I was teaching at my first school, my class was assigned to run the Prayer Service, and I decided to give the sermon myself.  I wanted to share what I said then because it is a good summary of a lot of what I believe.

I do want to say that my knowledge of these Greek comes from some books by Dr. Peter Kreeft, a professor of philosophy at Boston University and The King's College.  Any misspellings are my fault, but the meanings came from him.

---------------------------

Today we are gathered here in church to celebrate Ash Wednesday.  For those of you who do not know, Ash Wednesday is the first day of the season of Lent.  Lent is the time that we use to prepare ourselves to remember the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Lent is a very special time of year.  It is a time which contains things that seem to make no sense together, but really do belong together.  In Lent, we should feel sorrow that Jesus had to die on the cross for us, but we should be happy that he did so, because now we can enter heaven.  The saddest day of the year; the day on which we remember Jesus dying; we call Good Friday.  But, what is “good” about it?  What is good is that when Jesus died, he opened the gates of heaven, allowing us to live with God.

During Lent, we are asked to give up something that we value, whether it is drinking sodas, eating dessert, or playing video games in order to show that we want to; in some small way; imitate Jesus, who gave up His life for us.

Lent also shows us in a very special way the love that God has for everyone.  After all, didn’t God send down His Son, the person He loved most in the entire world, to die for us?  And not just to die any death, but to die that most painful and humiliating death that existed.  In John Chapter 15: 9-13 it says, "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love.  If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love.  I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.   My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.   Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”  Love is what God is all about.  Love is what Lent is all about.  In Greek, there are three words that mean love: eros, philia, and agape.  Eros is the love that might be expressed between a husband and wife, or people who are dating.  Philia is a love that would exist between family members.  Agape, however, is what is known as transcendent love.  Agape is a love that gives to others until it has nothing left, and then gives just a little more.  Agape is a love that would give of itself and might be demonstrated by someone who would save the life of another without regard for their own.  Agape is the type of love that God has for all of us.  A perfect love, a love that is not at all dependent on what we do, but simply exists because God chooses to let it exist.
Agape is the love that we must try to attain.  During Lent, we need to look at our actions and our thoughts and ask ourselves if what we think, say, or do is loving.  If it is not, then we need to ask for God’s forgiveness.  For every act that we commit which is sinful, we are told that it is like Jesus is nailed to the cross again.

Today, as we come forward to receive ashes on our foreheads, we will be singing a song.  The words are in Latin.  They are: “Ubi Caritas et Amor, Ubi Caritas Deus Ibi Est.”  They mean: “Where there is charity and love, where there is charity, there is God.”  Caritas means “charity” and can also mean “love”.  It has the same meaning as agape.  Like agape, it is a love that gives of itself endlessly.  This song reminds us of Matthew 18:20 in which Jesus says, “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

Love is for everyone at all times.  The one most consistent theme of the Bible is that of love.  When Jesus is asked to name the greatest commandment in Matthew 22, he says that there are two: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'  This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."  In his First Letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul tells us that:

                                If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not
                                love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.  If
                                I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and
                                all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains,
                                but have not love, I am nothing.  If I give all I possess to the
                                poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love,
                                I gain nothing.

                                Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast,
                                it is not proud.  It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not
                                easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not
                                delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects,
                                always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

                                Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease;
                                where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is
                                knowledge, it will pass away.  For we know in part and we
                                prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect
                                disappears.  When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought
                                like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put
                                childish ways behind me.  Now we see but a poor reflection as in
                                a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I
                                shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

                                And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest
                                of these is love.

As you go through Lent, keep a few things in mind.

[1] Ask God to forgive you for the times that you have been mean and not loving to those around you.  Ask Him for help and grace to become more like Him and to become more perfect in your love.

[2] Thank God for sending Jesus into the world to die for us.  He did not have to, and His doing so demonstrates for us very clearly just how much God loves us.

[3] Keep these days between now and Easter holy.  Pray unceasingly.  Ask for God’s help for yourself and for others, especially those who you may not get along with.

Ash Wednesday is the day in which we prepare for Lent, which in turn prepares us for Jesus’ death and resurrection.  When you come up to receive ashes today, let them be not just a sign on the outside of the coming of Lent, but allow them to enter into you and change you from the inside to become a more holy and loving person.

Why I haven't been to church in years

Recently, I had a conversation with a friend who was very surprised by (among other things) the fact that I haven't been to church (with a few rare exceptions) since 2010.  To be honest, I also barely went to church in the last two years of college and my attendance between 2008 and 2010 was (with the exception of the 2009-2010 school year) mainly when I was going to school sponsored masses.  What I want to do here is explain why I've haven't been back.

As you can probably guess, most of my lack of going to mass has to do with the fact that I am (honestly) not welcome by the church.  Not the true me.  If I want to go to church, I need to be a truncated, almost castrated, version of myself.  I am deemed to be "intrinsically disordered" because of the fact that I am gay.  Several times, when I went to Confession about my feelings for other guys, I was told to focus on women and how women and men were complementary, as if that would help me become straight.  I was constantly wracked by guilt because of feelings I had little to no control over and had to hide and deny who I was for years.  If I ever fall in love, I cannot marry him in the church, which has been a lifelong dream for me.  Instead, I will have to go to through a civil ceremony which, while not bad, is not what I have hoped and dreamed of for as long as I can remember.

In a religion about love, it is remarkable to discover that not all love is valued.  Yes, I know all of the religious arguments about homosexuality (remember, I have taught both Religion and CCD classes for several years), but none of that changes the fact that I am looked upon by many people (and by the Church herself) as secondary and less than other people, merely because of the fact that I love other men and not women.

When I was teaching Religion and CCD, I always felt as if I almost had a split identity because I had to pretend to be one thing while actually being another.  I cannot tell you how many times I had to talk about "love the sinner, but hate the sin" in regards to homosexuality while talking with students about sexuality.  It happened so often that I actually ended up internalizing the arguments and coming perilously close to hating myself and everything that I was.

I am sure that someone out there is wondering why I don't simply pick another church.  The answer is that, other than this issue, I do believe that the Catholic Church has it mostly right.  I cannot in good conscience go to a Protestant church.  While I may be able to find a more inclusive Catholic parish, it would not change the fact that the Church herself would not be welcoming to me or others like me.  So I am caught in an almost impossible situation.  Either I go back to a church that looks down on me and who I am, I go to a church that I do not believe in, or I don't go to church at all.  So, I settled for the last option.  None of the options is something I particularly like, but sometimes that happens.

I know there are people who are going to remind of various aspects of Catholic teaching.  Believe me, I have considered all of them and you are unlikely (at best) to change my mind.  Until the Church becomes more accepting of LGBT people and who they love, I am unlikely to go back except for rare occasions such as funerals or weddings.

On respect for marriage....

I ran into an interesting article on Slate.com today about two straight buddies from New Zealand who married each other in order to get tickets to the Rugby World Cup next year.  The author of the piece basically argues that people who argue for marriage equality have no right to disagree with what these two gentlemen have done.  To put it politely, the argument is completely ludicrous.

The author is correct when he argues that there are financial benefits to marriage and that is an important reason why marriage equality is so important.  However, to compare financial issues like estate planning and taxes with the opportunity to get tickets to a sports game is so far beyond ridiculous as to cause one to question the sanity (or at very least the intelligence) of the person making the comparison.

In the second from last paragraph, the author does make great points when he says, "And if we're concerned about mocking marriage, we can campaign against Elvis impersonators performing quickie weddings in Las Vegas, against no-fault divorce, or point at the opponents of marriage equality who have been married several times."  I am against each and every one of these.  Each of these things (along with the competition under discussion) makes a mockery of marriage by making it seem like something that should be done on a whim.

Marriage is an institution which should a union of people who come together out of mutual love in order to form a family and provide a level of stability to society (conservatives actually get this right, they just don't extend marriage far enough).  Marriage should never be entered into lightly, because "we wanted to", or any other trivial reason.  That is why I am against divorce in almost all circumstances.  The only reasons I think are viable ones for divorce are spousal or child abuse (emotional or physical).  I hesitate to say that divorce is acceptable when two people start to disagree because too many people use this as an excuse to bail rather than work on their marriage.  I despise (ok, that word is so not nearly strong enough!) reality shows which have people dating/marrying based on the show for the same reasons.  These shows (like the Bachelor or Bachelorette) turn marriage into something where people pick mates for the wrong reasons and they never seem to stay together.

Don't believe me?  Look at most marriage vows which ask people to stay together in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, etc.  I have been to weddings conducted by Christians (of several denominations), justices of the peace, a pagan priestess, and an official whose official title I do not know.  In each case, some variation of these vows were used.  My point is that (from what I have seen) most marriage ceremonies intend to bind the couple together for longer than just their convenience.

So yes, I am mad about this sort of mockery of marriage because it makes what marriage equality advocates have worked on for years seem like nonsense and it debases the institution of marriage.

On the definition of marriage

Earlier today I was pointed towards this video in which Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation answers a question from a audience member who wants to an explanation as to why he, as a gay man, could not receive a tax break the way a straight couple could.  Anderson at first attempts to evade the question by broadening the focus of the question to include any potential marriage (of whatever size).  Two or three times the gentleman attempts to refocus the answer to the question which was asked and it was not until the last time that Anderson finally answers the question.  And when he does his answer is that "You can't get married." because a same-sex marriage, to him, is not a marriage at all.

His answer relies on the acceptance of his definition of marriage as exclusively that between a man and a woman, or as he says it, "a union of sexually complementary spouses."  In other words, because your marriage does not fit my definition of marriage, it is not really a marriage.  This answer begs the question as to why this particular definition is the correct definition of marriage.  I will grant that it is possible that Anderson answered this question earlier, but I can only work with what is in front of me.  I have looked at several things on the Heritage Foundation website, but each time the definition seems to be assumed rather than explained.

Mr. Anderson also gives a stunning display of simplistic logic.  Since marriage is "a union of sexually complementary spouses" and a union of two men or two women does not fit this particular definition, there is no discrimination involved in denying a same-sex couple access to the tax benefits available to a straight married couple.  After all, homosexuals have full access to heterosexual marriage, so there is no discrimination.  All you have to do is marry someone you are not attracted to at all and therefore undermine the very thing Mr. Anderson purports to want to defend.  If this makes sense to anyone, please enlighten me because his idea of non-discrimination rests on his definition of marriage which is what is being argued here.

I, for one, would like an explanation as to why marriage *MUST* be defined as "a union of sexually complementary spouses".  The most common answer is that this is the "traditional" definition of marriage.  While I have no objection to tradition per se, I do object to it being the sole reason to carry out a discriminatory policy.  After all, it was "tradition" to have a man marry multiple women, have marriages be arranged by parents, not to allow people of different races or religions to marry, etc.  So why can the definition of marriage be stretched to encompass these and not same-sex marriages?  Oh yeah, that's right.  Because being a homosexual is a choice!  See here for my reaction to that.

Will leave this alone for the moment.  May write more after I have more of a chance to read his stuff.

On tolerance and the "persecution" of "traditional marriage" advocates.....

Ok, I want to address two different things in this post which are linked, but not the same.

First, I want to look at the supposed persecution of people advocating for "traditional marriage".  If you look at any number of right wing blogs, the National Organization for Marriage website, or any similar site, you will notice a plethora of posts or items about how advocates of "traditional marriage" lamenting how they are being "persecuted" for their beliefs by people who advocate for marriage equality (or, as they put it, "redefining marriage").

This is a bit of a tricky situation.  If someone is the public face of a company or group and they hold (and preach) beliefs that run counter to the beliefs of the company/group as a whole, then they should be let go because that creates a certain amount of dissonance in the organization.  If, however, the person is not the public face, then the situation is different.

I also want to say that if they think that is persecution, they should step in the shoes of members of the LBGTQIA community.  How many traditional marriage advocates are killed each year because of their beliefs?  How many are beaten?  How many are told that their sexuality means that they are "demonic"?  How many are declared illegal in countries around the world because of who they are?  How many of them are told that they want "to freely prey on little children sexually"?  And I could go on.  They ain't being persecuted.  The extreme rhetoric coming out of their mouths is landing them in hot water with people as attitudes are becoming more and more inclusive over time.

What really baffles me is that most of the people who preach these sorts of things claim to be Christians, yet they say that it is a good thing for gays to be stoned (here or here) or worse (such as supporting Uganda's law outlawing homosexuality).  Christianity is not a religion of hate, regardless of what these people make it seem like.  Christianity is truly a religion of love.  In fact, in 1 Corinthians 13, love is deemed the greatest virtue.  That is why I get so upset about this.  These people are twisting the religion I love all out of proportion and using it to advocate hate.

I do want to emphasize something (my second point), namely that not everyone who opposes marriage equality is advocating hate.  There are a lot of people out there who sincerely believe that marriage should only be between members of the opposite sex, but don't look to harm those who believe otherwise.  These people need to merely be educated and talked to.  While they may not agree with marriage equality, they are not necessarily active hostile to it either.  There is a difference between disagreeing with someone and hating them.  I am not saying they are never the same, but they are not always the same.

What we, as marriage equality advocates, need to do is to show them that we respect them and their beliefs, while making it clear that we think they are wrong.  It needs to be done lovingly and respectfully, even if they deny us the same.

On what defines someone's sexual orientation....

In my last post, I showed a link to this blog post.  I didn't talk much about it then because I wanted to devote an entire post to just what it has to say and what the one comment (as of this writing) on the post says.

Before I get started, I want to be sure to note that when I say "gay" here, I am referring to anyone who not heterosexual, be they male or female.  I find it easier to just say that, so please don't think I am addressing exclusively gay men, although that is what I can best speak to as I am one.

First, I think this post does a wonderful job explaining what does and does not make someone gay or straight.  Many people, of all sexual orientations, think that being gay (or lesbian or bi) is simply a matter of who you have sex with.  After all, isn't the word "sex" in "sexual orientation"?  And yes, I have actually seen someone online write that.  Here's the thing, under that logic, a virgin has no sexual orientation.  The problem with this is self-evident, people have a sexual orientation even if they have never had sex.  There is also a large dose of hypocrisy here, because the same people who insist on this have no problem insisting that people are born straight.  Excuse me, but if one is true, the other must be too.  Of course, these hypocrites are also the people who insist that homosexuality is a choice and that only heterosexuality is "normal".

Let's unpack all of this, starting with some basic facts:

[1] Sexual orientation is inborn and a part of who a person is.  Whether it is gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, or pansexual (did I miss any?) your sexual orientation is a part of who you are.
[2] Sexual orientation is not synonymous with sexual activity.  Someone who is straight might experiment with someone of the same sex.  This does not make them gay or bi.  It just means that they are experimenting.  Someone who is gay or lesbian can have sex with someone of the opposite sex and this does not make them straight or bi.
[3] Sexual orientation is *NOT* the equivalent of political beliefs, religious beliefs, or anything like that.  Those can (and frequently do) change.  Sexual orientation does not change.  It can be ignored and suppressed, but it does not change.  So stop with the false equivalences.

The problem is that there are many people (and not just on the political/religious right) who want to equate sexual activity with sexual orientation.  Around the time I was coming out, I was actually asked by someone how I knew I was gay if I had never had sex with a woman.  My answer was simple, I am not attracted to women.  I can tell you that I think a woman is beautiful and I can admire her attributes, but the attributes have no impact on me in a physical sense (trying to be delicate here).  On the other hand, put a hot guy in the room and a physical reaction will most definitely occur.  Being gay really does have an impact across your life, not just in the bedroom or wherever else you have sex.  Being gay impacts how people look at me, legal and religious options I have, choices about my family, and a whole lot more.

The first step (after the realization that you are gay) for most people is coming out of the closet.  I addressed that here, so I don't want to belabor the point too much except to address something in the comment I mentioned above.  The commenter spends a lot of time talking about how gay men make "false arguments" which are "designed to make you feel justified in your 'coming out' ritual."  I want to address some comments a little bit more, so here is a quote from the comment:

                           I'm conservative. I don't have to have a "coming out" party to
                           announce that I'm a conservative, and that this will "shape many
                           if not all of my experiences and opinions." Similarly, I don't
                           choose a specific day to announce that I prefer to sleep with the
                           opposite gender because this will, "shape many if not all of my
                           experiences and opinions." I'm also a carnivore. While this does
                           "shape many if not all of my experiences and opinions," I have
                           yet to have a "coming out" date to announce my propensity to eat
                           meat. 

                           I don't announce these things because nobody does, nor should they,
                           care. Your opinions and personality will speak for itself. I don't need
                           what you ultimately decide to do in the bedroom to be the definition
                           you choose to label yourself with.

There are so many issues with this that I could spend several blog posts talking about them.  I want to start with the assumption that being gay is akin to political ideology or dietary choices.  This assumption is so wrong headed that it is laughable.  While all of these things do shape how you view the world (as do all your experiences), both dietary choices and political ideology are *CHOICES* and not immutable whereas sexual orientation is an inborn part of you and is immutable.  You can deny it, suppress it, or fight it, but it does not change short of some incredibly dramatic and life-changing event (if then).  I know there are people who claim to be "ex-gays" but (as far as I can tell) they are either deceiving themselves or were never actually gay in the first place.  Also, note how the commenter equates sexual orientation with "what you ultimately decided to do in the bedroom," continuing the thought that sexual orientation is a "choice".

As for his comment about "I don't choose a specific day to announce that I prefer to sleep with the opposite gender," all I need to say is that our society if heteronormative and therefore everyone assumes that you are straight unless you actually say otherwise, so this argument is completely nonsensical as well as being a non-sequitur.  Trying to equate the two is like comparing apples and oranges, in other words, it makes no sense.

I do want to address something else, even though it is not strictly speaking related to this topic.  Over the past several months, there have been cries from the religious and political right that they are being persecuted against because of their beliefs regarding sexual orientation.  For example, bakers and photographers being told that they must serve gay customers and cannot refuse them due to religious beliefs.  While I am not at all fond of people being told who they must or must no deal with in terms of business, I find myself reluctantly forced to agree with the courts.  The reason is one that is questionable logically, but has been played out often enough that it is a valid concern: the slippery slope.  After all, if someone is told that they can refuse to serve someone due to their religious beliefs (which are inherently subjective and thus not subject to any legal test), where will it stop?  Experience tells us that most people, if given an inch, will take a mile.  In order for a exception to a law to be made, there have to be measurable standards that the exception can be compared to.  When something is inherently subjective, there can be no test which makes the exception untenable.  This is a case where the courts need to decide how rights interact with the open market and the courts felt (rightly) that if you enter the market, you need to put up with some restrictions (like are currently in place regarding serving people of other races) if you wish to serve the public.